Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0 BOCC Staff Report 05.27.2010May 27, 2010 Administrative Review MOL PROJECT INFORMATION REQUEST: Major (4 Lot) Exemption APPLICANTS / OWNER: Lacy Orr and Gil Smith LOCATION: Approximately 9 miles south of the Town of New Castle at 6640 County Road 312, Garfield County. SITE DATA: 78.5 acres; Parcel No. 2183-304-00-008 PROPOSED CONFIGURATION: 5 Lots ranging in size from 11.39 acres to 20.60 acres WATER/SEWER: Individual and Shared WeIIs/Septic Systems (ISDS) ACCESS: County Road 312 EXISTING ZONING: Rural STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions I PROPOSAL Lacy Orr and Gil Smith (Applicants) are owners of a parcel of land divided by County Road 312 (CR 312) and south of the Town of New Castle. The 78.51 -acre property currently has two residences with outbuildings on the parcel. The Applicants seeks to allow for the creation of five (5) single-family residential lots as permitted by the Major Exemption process. On January 18, 2010, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approved a factual finding that CR 312 prevented the joint use of the proposed exemption lots thus creating a fifth lot. The Applicants are requesting approval pursuant to Section 5-202 (B): County Exemptions Requiring Platting, Major (4 Lot) Exemption, and Section 5-406: General County Exemption Criteria, of the Unified Land Use Code of 2008, as amended. This application proposes to create parcels in the following manner: Lot 1: 15.09 acres Lot 2: 11.39 acres Lot 3: 15.17 acres Lot 4: 16.26 acres Lot 5: 20.60 acres Total 78.51 acres 1 May 27, 2010 Administrative Review MOL 1•111111a C..."e. X WNW/ a WOO CON aa..We _ten m+n. - .w.. 91.11 Tole Mt. CV ,o C4115Ja9M LV Vl.3.1r M.KS @6 R&.SIIK. .PFy.WTN.I ert PM1:i9WAv. ..N.•,.o.:ee a.,.,..,, Orr/Smith Exemption 1,300 2,600 5,200 Feet 1 1 1 1 t i1 1 2 May 27, 2010 Administrative Review MOL ..- ,-.,--‘..:1- ,-1.-- �rir�i. MP= Orr -Smith Subdivision Exemption Plat .� r54� A tract pf land beings portion of the S1/2SE1/4 of Section 30 Township 6 South, Range 90 West of the (Rh P.M. County of Garfield, Stale of Colorado . i '\\ � ! _ S • ,:T • :'=X: - 3• IiExemptloo • Exemptlm Intl 4Ct ter 1 ---,....",-.-g.::,,,... �. ",^..": F .1 moi°`:r ` _ \ ..""....F.': �- w» 1 •.�_ - iot S ^`` --+ �, _ - .- 1tii _. \\ -- •: Exam Nm tot ,� •. •- `» tom es Ecentlon Lot X41 ^.-,.'•.' -- u— r3G tiy.S� �. --7:„;i7.--:-;----'.;-: .,.Lot, �. Fr=2 ���` ;a (' iFii .�� 11.4 V.Var- i;,%ixr`,7' yS [cats }i�rrru.. i HRtia of HCRyt a8R ♦.... n.- / %' ...w ~' +A .. W [,�.gei[ iri • �} -../1 . ESE , ElZi t s rvCo, inc. r;6. t :a M ?aii: ." .CA 39i Ss Y —1 ta 1 • m . ......,. .... Il�r-moi 1.7 WY K —n Si _vaa-_B�+Y }� `l ;.'"-- ���� _ 2":1"2 i1� Proposed Major Exemption Plat Creating 5 Lots II REFERRAL COMMENTS Staff referred the application to the following agencies/County Departments for their review and comment. Comments received are attached as exhibits and incorporated into the memorandum where applicable. County Road and Bridge (Exhibit A): This department's has no objections to this application but has the following comments: • The 60 foot right-of-way, 30 feet each side of the center line of CR 312, extending the entire length of the property shall be deeded to Garfield County for future road improvements. • All structures (fences, buildings, etc.) within the 60 foot right-of-way shall be moved or an encroachment agreement with Garfield County shall be agreed upon. All legal documents stating the encroachment shall be filed with Garfield County. • All vehicles hauling equipment and materials for this project shall abide by Garfield County's oversize /overweight permit system and permits obtained from the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department. 3 May 27, 2010 Administrative Review MOL County Vegetation Manager (Exhibit B): This department requests that the Applicants survey the parcel for noxious weeds and provide a Weed Management Plan for any weeds found on the property. Water Resources/State Engineer: No comments received. Colorado Geological Survey (Exhibit C): This agency has identified that the subject parcel has geologic hazards and should be addressed through engineered design. Colorado Department of Transportation (Exhibit D): This agency reviewed the application for an access permit on the state highway system and believes that this project doesn't affect the highway more than 20% and therefore has no comment. School District — RE -2: No comment received. Burning Mountain FPD (Exhibit E): This department requests that all new homes built within this subdivision install a NFPA 13D Fire Sprinkler System which requires water storage of 25 minutes. A visual and audible flow alarm is also required as part of this system. County Engineering (Consultant) (Exhibit F): This consultant had the following comments: • Lot 5 has no irrigation water. Provisions for outside watering on Lot 5 should be provided. • No design or design parameters are provided for the shared well for Lots 2, 3, and 4. This system should be designed and engineered. • Provide clarification of the engineered system for the shared well for Lots 2, 3, and 4 in the Water Well Use and maintenance agreement. • Well No. 2 proposes to be disinfected before that well can be used as a potable well. That language should be revised to include a passing bacteriological analysis. County Surveyor: No comment received. County Environmental Health (Exhibit G): This department had the following comments: • All existing wells not being used should be abandoned and plugged (i.e., Wells 2 and 3). • Submit well abandonment affidavits to the Division of Water Resources. • As the lots come under new ownership, well permits must be changed at the Division of Water Resources to reflect current ownership of the well. Town of New Castle: No comments received. Colorado State Forest Service (Exhibit H): This agency had the following comments: The proposed project is in a low to moderate wildfire hazard area. The wildfire hazard rating is based on the close proximity of combustible vegetation on and near the property, specifically Lot 5. For this reason, the Colorado State Forest Service Defensible Space standards on every structure in the subdivision should be applied. 4 May 27, 2010 Administrative Review MOL Bureau of Land Management (Exhibit I): This agency indicated by a phone call that the Applicants have a right-of-way agreement for the existing well situated on Lot 1 and this well is to only serve the residence on Lot 1. Garfield Creek Water Commissioner (Exhibit J): Through a phone call the water commissioner stated that their records are not clear on what irrigation water is attached to the subject property. Adjacent Property Owner (Exhibit K): Mrs. Linda Lashley Trisch called on behalf of herself and her husband to say they thought the subdivision was a positive proposal in that it would allow other families to experience a country life style. She also mentioned that development of the land should be done in a way that is more environmentally sensitive. III RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The subject property is located in Study Area 2 of the Comprehensive Plan of 2000 and is designated Outlying Residential. IV ISSUES AND CONCERNS Subdivision Exemption Regulation/Property Eligibility Section 5-202(B) of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended (ULUR) stipulates the following requirements for a major exemption: Section 5-202 (B). Major (4 Lot) Exemption. Division of land by which no more than four (4) parcels, i.e. the remainder parcel and not more than three (3) new parcels will be split from a parcel of land that was described in the records of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's Office as of January 1, 1973 as a parcel of land 35 acres or more in size and not part of a recorded subdivision. In addition to the general exemption criteria, contained in Section 5-406, the proposed Major Exemption shall require recording of a Major Exemption Plat, describing each Exemption Lot by a metes and bounds legal description and as a numbered or lettered "Exemption Lot". Section 5-202 (B) (2). The parcel of land under consideration, or part thereof, is split by a public right-of-way or a county road right-of-way included in the county highway system, and the location of the public or county right-of-way prevents joint use of one or more of the proposed Exemption Lots. In such instance, the division of land may include a split into no more than five (5) parcels, i.e. no more than four (4) new parcels and the remainder parcel in a Major Exemption and no more than three (3) parcels, i.e. no more than two (2) new parcels and the remainder parcel, in a Minor Exemption. Staff Findings The subject property existed in the current configuration prior to January 1st, 1973 as indicated in memorandum by SURVCO, Inc. dated March 6, 2007 and warranty deed provided by the Applicants. 5 May 27, 2010 Administrative Review MOL Zoning The subject property is located within the Rural Zone District. As required by the ULUR, the Applicants' proposal as represented conforms to all County zoning requirements with the exception of the side -yard setback of the residence on Lot 1. This deviation from the code was approved through Resolution No. BOA 2008-01 and allowed a side -yard setback variance for this structure. Domestic/Irrigation Water Legal Supply The legal water supply for this application is the valid well permits issued by the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) for the three wells drilled on the property. This includes Well Permit Numbers 80600, 152526, and 271770. The existing house on Lot 1 is served by an existing well with Permit No. 80600 issued in 1975 for domestic use including irrigation of not over one acre. The allowable use of this permit is the historical use which includes one single family residence and irrigation of lawn and garden estimated at 5,000 square feet. The existing residence (to be removed) on Lot 2 is served by an existing well Permit No. 152526 issued in 1988 for domestic use including irrigation of not to exceed one acre. Permit No. 271770 was issued for the well drilled on Lot 4. This permit allows for up to three single family residences, irrigation of up to one acre, and watering of domestic animals. This well will serve Lots 3, 4, and 5. Irrigation rights from Garfield Creek will provide water for the irrigated areas on Lots 3 and 4 and outside irrigation for Lot 5 will be provided by Lot 4 well water not to exceed one acre. Physical Supply The wells are anticipated to sufficiently serve the five lots. However, in order to verify that the well on Lot 4 can physically deliver water to Lots 3, 4, and 5, engineering drawings are required to be submitted to the County for review and approval prior to the signing of the Exemption Plat by the BOCC. Also, a well -sharing agreement for Lots 3, 4, and 5 is required and is a condition of this approval. Wastewater The existing residences on Lots 1 and 2 are currently being served by Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS). All proposed homes on Lots 3, 4, and 5 shall have an ISDS engineered by a professional engineer. Access With the exception of Lot 2, Lots 1, 3, 4, and 5 will have direct access from CR 312. Lot 2 will be accessed from CR 312 by a 30 foot access easement that crosses Lot 1. This access easement follows the alignment of an existing dirt driveway that extends from the residence on Lot 1 to the residence and out buildings on Lot 2. The access to Lot 5 also follows an existing dirt road that is parallel to CR 312. 6 May 27, 2010 Administrative Review MOL The County Road and Bridge Department reviewed the proposal and conducted an on-site visit with Applicants' representative, John Taufer. Jake Mall of the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department stated that they have "no objections to this application." Presently, the Road and Bridge Department requests a 60' (30' from centerline) deeded easement for CR 312 and all structures (fences, buildings, etc.) within the 60 foot right-of-way will need to be moved or an encroachment agreement with Garfield County will need to be agreed upon. A Declaration regarding the roadway access for Lot 2 along with the driveway permits for Lots 3, 4 and 5 were submitted with this application. Fire Protection The subject property is located within the Burning Mountain Fire Protection District (FPD). Assistant Fire Marshall Orrin Moon responded to the referral and requested that all new homes be required to install a NFPA 13D Fire Sprinkler with water storage of 25 minutes and visual/audible flow alarm. The existing homes on Lots 1 and 2 will not be required to be retrofitted with this sprinkler system. However, it these homes are every torn down and new homes built, this requirement will apply to these structures. Staff suggests a plat note for future homes to have a sprinkler system be required. Easements The site is subject to existing and proposed easements including an access easement for Lot 2, overhead electric (on Lot 5), ditch, and waterlines. Overhead electric lines exist on Lots 1 and 2, but are not contained within easements. Through the platting process the Applicants shall legally describe all easements. Staff is recommending satisfaction of this requirement as a condition of approval of the application. Severed Mineral Interests The Applicants states that there are no recorded mineral rights on the property. Staff suggests the following plat note be placed on the Exemption Plat: "The mineral rights associated with this property will not be transferred with the surface estate therefore allowing the potential for natural resource extraction on the property by the mineral estate owner(s) or lessee(s). " A list of required standard plat notes has been provided to the Applicants for their inclusion on the Exemption Plat, and a condition of approval is recommended. Vegetation Steve Anthony, County Vegetation Manager requested that the Applicants provide a map and inventory of any County Listed Noxious Weeds on the subdivision. A Weed Management Plan is required to address any inventoried County listed noxious weeds. Staff suggests a plat note that the Weed Management Plan to be included within the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions be added to the Exemption Plat. 7 May 27, 2010 Administrative Review MOL Geology Colorado Geologic Survey has reviewed the application and indicates that geologic hazards exist on-site. The following plat notes are suggested by Staff to ensure that any potential lot owner will be informed of these potential hazards. These plat notes are as follows: • This subdivision is located in a geologically sensitive area and therefore may be prone to hazards including landslides, unstable slopes, collapsible soils, shallow ground water, perched water, and erosion. The development of each lot shall be designed to eliminate or mitigate the potential effects of hazardous site conditions, by a qualified professional geotechnical engineer. No building permit for any of the lots shall be accepted by the County without a geotechnical report by a professional geotechnical engineer. • All ISDS systems are to be designed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado. • No building shall be allowed within 35 feet of the high water mark of Garfield Creek. V PROPOSED FINDINGS 1. That proper notice was provided to adjacent property owners as required by the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended; 2. That the administrative review was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that adjacent property owners had the ability to be heard regarding this request; 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed exemption has been determined to be in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County; 4. That the application has met the requirements Article V, Division 4 and Article VII of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended if conditions are satisfied. VI STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the proposed Exemption will comply with the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended if the following conditions of approval are met. Therefore Staff recommends that the Director of Building and Planning approve the Major (4 lot) Exemption with the following conditions of approval. 1. All representations made by the Applicants shall be considered conditions of approval unless otherwise amended or changed by the Decision of the Director. 8 May 27, 2010 Administrative Review MOL 2. The Applicants shall include the following text as plat notes on the Exemption Plat: a. Control of noxious weeds is the responsibility of the property owner in compliance with the Colorado Noxious Weed Act and the Garfield County Weed Management Plan. b. No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within an exemption. One (1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defined by C.R.S. 25-7- 401, et. seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances. c. All exterior lighting shall be the minimum amount necessary and that all exterior lighting be directed inward and downward, towards the interior of the subdivision exemption, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries. d. Colorado is a "Right -to -Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq. Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector. Those with an urban sensitivity may perceive such activities, sights, sounds and smells only as inconvenience, eyesore, noise and odor. However, State law and County policy provide that ranching, farming or other agricultural activities and operations within Garfield County shall not be considered to be nuisances so long as operated in conformance with the law and in a non -negligent manner. Therefore, all must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non -negligent agricultural operations. e. All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches, controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property. Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights and responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good introductory source for such information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield County. f The mineral rights associated with this property will not be transferred with 9 May 27, 2010 Administrative Review MOL the surface estate therefore allowing the potential for natural resource extraction on the property by the mineral estate owner(s) or lessee(s). g. No future division will be allowed via subdivision exemption. 3. Other plat notes to be added to the Exemption Plat include: a. This subdivision is located in a geologically sensitive area and therefore may be prone to hazards including landslides, unstable slopes, collapsible soils, shallow ground water, perched water, and erosion. The development of each lot shall be designed to eliminate or mitigate the potential effects of hazardous site conditions, by a qualified professional geotechnical engineer. No building permit for any of the lots shall be accepted by the County without a geotechnical report by a professional geotechnical engineer. b. No building shall be allowed within 35 feet of the high water mark of Garfield Creek. c. Any ISDS systems proposed for the subdivision shall be designed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado. d. The Weed Management Plan approved by the County Vegetation Manager shall be included in the Home Owner Association's Covenants Conditions and Restrictions and adhered to by all lot owners. e. All new homes shall be required to install a NFPA 13D Fire Sprinkler with water storage of 25 minutes and visual/audible flow alarm. The existing homes presently on Lots 1 and 2 will not be required to be retrofitted with this sprinkler system. However, it these homes are every torn down and new homes built this requirement will apply to these structures. f. All lot owners shall install individual water softening and water conditioning systems. g. Due to the flammable vegetation and slope on Lot 5, this lot shall implement the Colorado State Forest Service's Defensible Space standards and shall be incorporated into the Home Owners Association's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of this subdivision. The area called Defensible Space has three zones. 1) The size of Zone One is at least 15 feet, measured from the edge of the structure but can vary depending on the percent of the surrounding slope. Within Zone One, several specific treatments are recommended: • Plant nothing and allow no shrubs or trees to grow within 3 to 5 feet of any structure. If landscaped grass is allowed to grow in the area around the structure it must not grow taller than 6 inches. 10 May 27, 2010 Administrative Review MOL • If the structures are built with non-combustible siding, such as rock or stucco, widely spaced foundation planting of low growing shrubs or other "fire -wise" plants are acceptable. • It is ideal to remove all flammable vegetation, specifically native trees, in Zone One to reduce fire hazards. If a native tree is kept in Zone One it should be considered part of the structure and the zone extended out around it and/or isolated from other surrounding trees. Landscaped trees, particularly deciduous species, are allowed in Zone One as long as they are not right next to the structure, no shrubs are growing beneath them and they are on a watering system to insure adequate plant moisture. 2) Zone Two is an area of fuel reduction designed to reduce the intensity of any wildfire approaching the structure. Within this zone, the following is recommend: • Trees and shrubs should be thinned so there is at least a 10 foot space between crowns. Crown separation is measured from the furthest branch on one tree to the nearest tree crown. On steep slopes, allow more space between tree crowns. • Trees may be clumped together in twos or threes to create a more natural appearance, but adequate spacing between clumps must be maintained. • Ladder fuels, such as small shrubs, young trees and very low growing branches, should be removed from beneath remaining trees. These fuels can feed a wildfire and produce greater heat and intensity. 4. The Applicants shall provide an inventory of County Listed Noxious Weeds and Weed Management Plan for the site. The inventory and management plan shall be reviewed and approved by the County Vegetation Manager prior to the signing of the Exemption Plat. 5. The Applicants shall provide a legal well sharing agreement for Lots 3, 4, and 5. This agreement shall discuss all easements, operation and maintenance costs, cost sharing, and cost assessments. This information shall be reviewed and approved by the County prior to signing the Exemption Plat. . A narrative describing the contents of this agreement shall be included in the Home Owner Associate's Covenants Conditions and Restrictions. 6. The Applicants shall provide engineered drawings for the water supply infrastructure for Lots 3, 4 and 5 to assure that the well on Lot 4 can physically deliver the water to these lots. Along with the engineered design, an improvement agreement, cost estimate, and security for construction of the necessary infrastructure shall be submitted to the County for reviewed and approved prior to signing the Exemption Plat. 7. The Applicants shall provide a Subdivision Improvement Agreement for County review and approval prior to the signing of the Exemption Plat. 8. The Applicants shall provide the Home Owner Associate's Covenants Conditions and Restrictions for County review and approval prior to the signing of the Exemption Plat. 11 May 27, 2010 Administrative Review MOL 9. The property is located in the School District RE2. As such, the Applicants shall be required to pay a fee in -lieu of School Land Dedication for the additional lot created. This fee shall be paid prior to the signing of the Exemption Plat. 10.The Exemption Plat shall describe all necessary easements for provision of utilities and access. 11. The Exemption Piat shall designate a 30 foot right-of-way easement from the centerline of the roadway along County Road 312 along the property line of the parcel. 12.AII structures (fences, buildings, etc.) within the 60 foot right-of-way easement shall be moved or an encroachment agreement shall be solidified with the County. All encroachment agreements shall be submitted for County review and approval prior to the signing of the Exemption Plat. 13. The Applicants shall treat Well No. 2 (Permit No. 266920) with a disinfected and pass a bacteriological analysis. This analysis shall be submitted to the County for review and approval prior to the signing of the Exemption Plat. 12 GARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning Department Review Agency Form Date Sent: April 21, 2010 Comments Due: May 7, 2010 Name of application: Orr/Smith Exemption Sent to: Garfield County Road & Bridge Department EXHIBIT B A Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify the Planning Department in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline. This form may be used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as necessary. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to: Garfield County Building & Planning Staff Contact: Molly Orkild-Larson 109 8th Street, Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax: 970-384-3470 Phone: 970-945-8212 General Comments: Garfield County Road & Bridge Department has no objections to this application with the following comments. The driveway access locations have been agreed to and approved in an onsite meeting. The added traffic volume created by this application will not have a major impact on the total traffic load for Cr. 312. A strip of land 30 -feet wide from the center line of the existing road (CR. 312) the entire length of the property along Cr. 312 will be deeded to Garfield County for future road improvements. All fences and or buildings encumbering the new ROW shall be moved back to the new ROW or an encroachment agreement with Garfield County shall be agreed to and legal documents stating the encroachment shall be filed with Garfield County. All vehicles hauling equipment and materials for this project shall abide by Garfield County's oversize/overweight permits system. All vehicles requiring oversize/overweight permits shall apply for them at Garfield County Road & Bridge Department. Name of review agency: Garfield County Road and Bridge Department By: Jake B. Mall Date Apri126, 2010 Revised 3/30/00 EXHIBIT 1 /56 MEMORANDUM To: Molly Orkild-Larson From: Steve Anthony Re: Comments on the Orr/Smith Exemption Date: May 7, 2010 Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the Orr/Smith Exemption. The Vegetation Management Department requests that the applicant survey the parcel (78.4 acres) for Garfield County Noxious Weeds and provide a weed management plan for any weeds found on the property. Attached is a copy of the Garfield County Noxious Weed List. GARFIELD COUNTY NOXIOUS WEED LIST Common name Leafy spurge Russian knapweed Yellow starthistle Plumeless thistle Houndstongue Common burdock Scotch thistle Canada thistle Spotted knapweed Diffuse knapweed Dalmation toadflax Yellow toadflax Hoary cress Saltcedar Saltcedar Oxeye Daisy Jointed Goatgrass Chicory Musk thistle Purple loosestrife Russian olive Absinth wormwood Scientific name Euphorbia esula Acroptilon repens Centaurea solstitalis Carduus acanthoides Cynoglossum officinale Arctium minus Onopordum acanthium Cirsium arvense Centaurea maculosa Centaurea difusa Linaria dalmatica Linaria vulgaris Cardaria draba Tamarix parvjflora Tamarix ramosissima Chrysanthemum leucantheum Aegilops cylindrica Cichorium intybus Carduus nutans Lythrum salicaria Elaeagnus angustifolia Artemesia absinthium *note this is a Colorado Listed noxious weed. STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone 303.866.2611 Fax 303.866.2461 May 6, 2010 Molly Orkild-Larson Garfield County Building & Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Location: St/2 SEA Section 30, T6S, R9OW of the 6th P.M. Subject: Review of Orr/Smith Major Subdivision Exemption Case No. SUAA-6206; Garfield County, CO; CGS Unique No. GA -10-0005 Dear Ms. Orkild-Larson: DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Bill Ritter. Jr. Governor James B. Marlin Executive Director Vincent Matthews Division Director and State Geologist EXHIBIT CO' Colorado Geological Survey has completed its review of the above -referenced project. I understand the applicant proposes to subdivide a 78.4 -acre parcel located at 6640 County Road 312 (Garfield Creek Road), New Castle, into 5 single-family residential lots of approximately 11.4 to 21.6 acres. With this referral, I received a set of two Subdivision Exemption Plat drawings (SurvCo, Inc., revised January 2010, date not legible), a land use application narrative (John L. Taufer & Associates, March 16, 2010), and a water resources report. The applicant provided soil survey information but, in general, soil survey data is relevant for only the uppermost five feet below the ground surface. I did not receive any geologic or geotechnical information. The applicant states, in a letter regarding compliance with Garfield County building standards (April 10, 2010), "There as (sic) no natural or geologic hazards on or adjacent to the property located in any blue or red zone hazard areas. There is no evidence of landslide, alluvial fan, rockfall or avalanche activity on any portion of the property." The applicant and their representatives appear to be unaware that the southwestern one third of the site, corresponding to proposed lots 1 and 5, is located on a mapped landslide (Carroll et al, 1996, Geologic map of the Center Mountain quadrangle, Garfield County, Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey, Open -File Report OF -96-2, scale 1:24000, AND Colton et al, 1975, Preliminary map of landslide deposits, Leadville 1° x 2° quadrangle, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF -701, scale 1:250000). The Center Mountain quadrangle landslide unit (Qls) is described as follows: Landslide deposits (Holocene and Pleistocene) -- Highly variable deposits similar in texture and lithology to recent landslide deposits (Qlsr). Includes rotational landslides, translational landslides, complex slump-earthflows, and extensive slope -failure complexes. Maximum thickness about 250 ft. Range from active, slowly creeping landslides to long -inactive, middle or perhaps even early Pleistocene landslides. Landslides arc more abundant and larger on the north and northeast sides of ridges. Area may be subject to future landslide activity, however deeply dissected deposits could be stable. May be prone to settlement when loaded. May include areas with shallow groundwater. There are numerous risks associated with construction on landslides and potentially unstable slopes: 1. Slopes that appear to be currently stable can be destabilized if modifications are made through excavation of cuts, addition of fills, and loading due to structures. GA.10-0005_1 Orr/Smith Exemption.doc 4;05 PM, 05/06/2010 Molly Orkild-Larson May 6,2010 Page 2 of 3 2. Presently stable slopes may become unstable, as a result of reduced soil strengths, if 1) significant moisture is added to the slope through residential irrigation or infiltration from ISDS, and/or 2) the existing drainage pattern is altered through grading, introducing water to areas that were previously drier. The land corresponding to proposed Lots 1 and 5 should not be developed unless the applicant can demonstrate that existing slopes and proposed temporary and permanent cut slopes are stable, and that the proposed development will not be impacted by, nor exacerbate, potential slope instability. This will require a site-specific investigation, including drilling, sampling, laboratory testing and slope stability analysis, to evaluate stability under existing and proposed slope, vegetation, water content, drainage and load conditions. IF the proposed development on Lots 1 and 5 is determined to be feasible from a slope stability perspective, the following precautions are recommended: 1. Grading for driveways, building pads and other improvements should be designed to minimize temporary and permanent cuts and fills to the extent possible. A qualified geotechnical professional should determine maximum allowable unretained, temporary and permanent cut/fill heights and slope angles, based on site-specific, measured shear strength values. Site grading and drainage plans should be prepared and reviewed by a qualified engineer who is familiar with the slope stability concerns. 2. Existing vegetative cover should be left intact to the extent possible, and every effort should be made to restore native vegetation within disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Irrigation beyond the bare minimum required to reestablish native vegetation should not be permitted. 3. If the soils on or near any part of the development become saturated through rainfall, snowmelt, a water or sewer pipeline failure or unchanneled road runoff, the soils could lose strength and fail slowly or catastrophically. Drainage features must be designed and maintained to quickly channel all surface runoff away from structures and roads and off of slopes as efficiently as possible. It is imperative that water is allowed to drain quickly and NOT pond anywhere within or near developed areas. 4. Homes should not be located on or immediately below steep slopes, because grading cuts and foundation excavations can cause removal of material at the toe of potential slide masses, possibly destabilizing soils above the cut. Based on the site geology and topography, the following additional geologic and geotechnical constraints exist on this site: Collapsible soils. According to geologic mapping, most of proposed lots 2, 3 and 4 are underlain by loess, a fine to very fine-grained soil deposited by wind and underlain by debris -flow deposits in lower Garfield Creek. Low-density loess deposits are usually prone to settlement when loaded and to hydrocompaction and piping when wetted, and can also be highly erodible. These materials are known to be problematic for foundations, floor slabs and roads. Collapsible and hydrocompactive soils can be addressed through proper subgrade preparation, fill placement, foundation and floor system design, surface and subsurface drainage, etc., but adequate characterization, analysis, design, construction and maintenance are required to mitigate potential problems associated with poor soil and bedrock conditions. Shallow groundwater, perched water and erosion. Garfield Creek crosses proposed lots 2, 3 and 4. Groundwater and/or perched water should be expected to occur at shallow depths over much of the site, especially on the lower portions of lots 1 through 4. Since lowermost floor and crawlspace levels must be located at least three feet above maximum anticipated groundwater levels, below -grade space, including partial and full -depth basements and crawl spaces, should not be considered feasible on this site unless site-specific groundwater monitoring indicates that the required separation distance can be maintained year-round. GA -10-0005_1 Orr/Smith Exemption.doc 4:05 PM, 05/06/2010 Molly Orkild-Larson May 6, 2010 Page 3 of 3 Foundation perimeter drain systems should be constructed to help control wetting of potentially expansive and collapsible soils in the immediate vicinity of foundation elements and floor slabs. It is critical that the perimeter drains are sloped to discharge to a pumped sump or a gravity outlet that discharges water as far as possible away from all structures. Building envelopes on proposed lots 2, 3 and 4 should be set back a sufficient distance from Garfield Creek, not only to reduce exposure to flooding, but to minimize risks associated with channel erosion and undercutting. ISDS. According to the NRCS Soil Survey, the entire site is severely limited in its suitability for conventional ISDS (septic tank absorption fields) due to low -permeability soils, shallow bedrock, shallow groundwater and slopes. Engineered septic systems wilI likely be required all lots. Considering the number and severity of potential development constraints on this site, Colorado Geological Survey would like to review any geologic and geotechnical information submitted for the proposed development, including geologic hazard and geotechnical reports, slope stability analyses, cut/fill recommendations and grading plans when available. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have questions or need clarification of issues identified during this review, please call me at (303) 866-2611 ext. 8316, or e-mail jill.carlson@state.co.us. Sincerely, Jill Carlson, C.E.G. Engineering Geologist GA -10-0005_1 Orr/Smith Exemption.doc 4:05 PM, 05/06/2010 From: Roussin, Daniel [DanieLRoussin@DOT.STATE.CO.US] Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 9:28 AM To: Molly Orkild-Larson Subject: Lacy Orr and Gil Smith Major 4 Lot Subdivision Exemption EXHIBIT 9 b Molly — I have reviewed the Lacy Orr and Gil Smith Major 4 Lot Subdivision Exemption for access permit on the state highway system. This project doesn't appear to effect the highway by more than 20%; therefore, I have no comments. Thanks Dan Roussin Region 3 Permit Unit Manager 222 South 6th Street, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501 970-683-6284 Office 970-683-6291 Fax file:l/E:1Lacv Orr and Gil Smith Major 4 Lot Subdivision Exemption.htm 5/14/2010 Burning Mountains Fire Protection Dist burning= isfrd(m, EXHIBIT May 11, 2010 Molly Orkild-Larson Garfield County Building Department. 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Reference: Orr/Smith Exemption, File Number SUAA-6206 Molly: This letter is to advise you that I have reviewed the Orr/ Smith Exemption, located at 6640 County Road 312. The owners, John Taufer, and 1 have agreed to remove the requirement of the two- 6000 gal water storage tanks from the Orr/ Smith Subdivision. The new requirement, agreed by all, is to add to plat notes that the new homes that will be built by others, be required to install a NFPA 13D Fire Sprinkler System, required water storage of 25 minutes for the sprinkler system, and install a visual /audible flow alarm. The existing home on Exemption lot 1 and 2 will not be required to be retro fitted with a sprinkler system. If the existing homes is ever torn down and completely rebuilt, then a sprinkler system will be required as above. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions, Orrin D. Moon, Asst. Fire Marshal. President, Karen MaddaPone-Cochran Secretary, John Moore Jr. Director, Robert Thrower Fire Chief, Brit C. McLin Treasurer, John W. Gredig Director, Mary L, Haggart Station #1 Administration PO Box 2 611 Main Street Silt, CO 81652 (970) 876-5738 Fax (970) 876-2774 Station #2 731 West Main New Castle, CO 81647 (970) 984-3412 Station #3 5255 CR 335 New Castle, CO 81647 (970) 984-3323 May 6, 2010 Ms. Molly Orkild-Larson Garfield County Building & Planning 0375 County Road 352 Rifle, CO 81650 MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND DESIGN RE: Review of Major Subdivision Exemption: Orr/Smith Exemption Dear Molly: EXHIBIT F This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the Orr1Smith Major Subdivision Exemption. The submittal was found to be thorough and well organized. The following questions, concerns, or comments were generated: 1. Lot 5 has no irrigation water and the well does not appear to allow for outside irrigation. No lawn, outside landscaping, or ornamental vegetation will be possible for Lot 5. This does not seem practical. The applicant should consider some provisions for providing outside water to Lot 5. 2. To share the well between Lots 3, 4, and 5 some system of telemetry, disinfection, pumping, storage and pressure boosting will be necessary. No design or design parameters were included with the submittal. This system should be designed and engineered. 3. Along with Note #2 above, some considerations or clarifications of that engineered system may need to be included in the "Water Well Use and Maintenance" agreement. 4. Well No. 2 proposes to be disinfected before that well can be used as a potable well. That language should be revised to include a passing bacteriological analysis, also. 5. No design is included for the fire storage tank. The design and construction will also need to be reviewed by the local Fire Department that required the storage. 6. Along with Note #5 above, there is no agreement for the continued use and maintenance of the fire storage system. Consideration should also be given to the source of water to fill the tank, making certain that the water rights of the source allow for this use. Feel free to call if any of the above needs clarification or if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, MourIin Cross Engineering, Inc. Chris Hale, PE 826 1/2 Grand Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PH: 970.945.5544 • FAX: 970.945.5558 • www.niountaincross-eng.com From: Jim Rada Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:46 AM To: Molly Orkild-Larson Subject: SUAA-6206 Orr/Smith Exemption. Attachments: Jim Rada (jrada@garfield-county.com).vcf Molly, Only a couple of comments on this application: EXHIBIT 1 at 1. It appears that the well on Lot 3 will not be used. If this is the case, the owners must plug and abandon this well and submit a well abandonment affidavit to the DWR. 2. The test well on Lot 2 is not currently approved as a domestic well. The submittal indicates that the existing well on lot 2 will likely be abandoned. Again, depending what is done on the property, domestic wells must be properly permitted for the chosen use and abandoned wells must be properly abandoned by a licensed well drill and the affidavit filed with the DWR. 3. As the lots come under new ownership, well permits must be changed at DWR to reflect current ownership of the well. Thanks for the opportunity to review and comment on this application. Jim Kada, KL.i 15 Environmental Health Manager Garfield County Public Health 195 W 14th Street Rifle, CO 81650 Phone 970.625-5200 x8113 Cell 970-319-1579 Fax 970-625-8304 Email jrada@garfleld-county.com arfleld-county.com Web www.ggarfield-county.com file://E:\SURA-6206 OrrSmith Exemotion..htm S/14/7n1(1 Molly Orkild-Larson From: Long,Kamie [Kamie.Long@ColoState.EDU] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 10:26 AM To: Long,Kamie; Molly Orkild-Larson Cc: lacyorr@rocketmail.com; jlt@sopris.net Subject: RE: SUM -6206, Orr and Smith Exemption apologize, please use this wildfire review for the Orr/Smith Exemption. Kamie Long 970-248-7325 From: Long,Kamie Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 9:07 AM To: 'morkild-Iarson@garfield-county.com' Cc: 'lacyorr@rocketmail.com'; 'jlt@sopris.net Subject: SUAA-6206, Orr and Smith Exemption Garfield County Building and Planning Department: EXHIBIT I am writing in response to a request for the Colorado State Forest Service's comments on the Orr/Smith Exemption application. After looking at the property using aerial photos and looking through the application, the proposed project is in a low to moderate wildfire hazard area. The wildfire hazard rating is based on the close proximity of combustible vegetation on and near the property, specifically on Lot 5. The native Colorado trees, pinyon and juniper, are highly flammable and they must be mitigated around any structures and along ingress/egress routes. Based on my review, I make the following suggestion: 1. Make the Colorado State Forest Service Defensible Space standards required on every structure in the subdivision. The area called Defensible Space has three zones. Zone One is where the bulk of the vegetation modification takes place. The size of Zone One is at least 15 feet, measured from the edge of the structure but can vary depending on the percent of the surrounding slope. I am not able to determine the slope on Lot 5, however, as slope becomes steeper, the vegetation must be mitigated at a greater distance to compensate for the heat and wind moving up the slope. Within Zone One, several specific treatments are recommended: A) Plant nothing and allow no shrubs or trees to grow within 3 to 5 feet of any structure. If landscaped grass is allowed to grow in the area around the structure it must not grow taller than 6 inches. A large percent of homes are lost in a wildfire due an ember landing in a bed of dead twigs and leaves created by vegetation located next to the structure. This can be avoided by following Defensible Space standards and keeping the area around the structures maintained. B) If the structures are built with non-combustible siding, such as rock or stucco, widely spaced foundation planting of low growing shrubs or other "fire -wise" plants are acceptable. A fact sheet of FireWise plant material, no. 6.305, has been produced and can be found at the Colorado State University's Extension's webpage at www.ext.colostate.edu. There is also a publication on FireWise Construction, design and materials that can be directly downloaded from the Colorado State Forest Service's website at http://csfs.colostate.edu/pdfs/construction booklet.pdf. C) It is ideal to remove all flammable vegetation, specifically native trees, in Zone One to reduce fire hazards. If a native tree is kept in Zone One it should be considered part of the structure and the zone extended out around it and/or isolated from other surrounding trees. Landscaped trees, particularly deciduous species, are allowed in Zone One as long as they are not right next to the structure, no shrubs are growing beneath them and they are on a watering system to insure adequate plant moisture. Zone Two is an area of fuel reduction designed to reduce the intensity of any wildfire approaching the structure. Within this zone, the following is recommend: A) Trees and shrubs should be thinned so there is at least a 10 foot space between crowns. Crown separation is measured from the furthest branch on one tree to the nearest tree crown. On steep slopes, allow more space between tree crowns. B) Trees may be clumped together in twos or threes to create a more natural appearance, but adequate spacing between clumps must be maintained. C) Ladder fuels, such as small shrubs, young trees and very low growing branches, should be removed from beneath remaining trees. These fuels can feed a wildfire and produce greater heat and intensity. The main goal of defensible space is for a wildfire to encounter Zone Two, slow down its rate of movement and decrease its intensity, then encounter Zone One where combustible vegetation is minimal and therefore the wildfire cannot make direct contact with the structure and the wind will move the wildfire past without too much destruction to the vegetation. Defensible space is not a onetime activity, it must be maintained by the homeowner every year as vegetation continues to grow. Additional information from the Colorado State Forest Service can be found at our website, http://csfs.colostate.edu/ I will also e-mail Ms. Orr and Mr. Taufer a copy of this e-mail for their records. Please feel free to contact me by e-mail at kamie.longt colostate.edu or at 970-248-7325. Thank you, %(gmie efong Colorado State Forest Service Assistant District Forester - Grand Junction 970-248-7325 2 Phone Conversation Date: May 5, 2010 Attendees: Carole Huey, BLM Molly Orkild-Larson; Senior Planner RE: Orr -Smith Major (4 lot) Exemption 1 EXHIBIT Topics of Discussion: Ms Huey called to reiterate that only the residence on Lot 1 is allowed to use the well that is on BLM land and that the BLM has a ROW easement agreement with the Applicants. Phone Conversation Date: May 18, 2010 Attendees: Bill West, Water Commissioner Molly Orkild-Larson; Senior Planner RE: Orr -Smith Major (41ot) Exemption EXHIBIT Topics of Discussion: The County inquired if he had any comments regarding the above project. Mr. West indicated that he has water information regarding cfs and shares but couldn't tell if it ran with the subject parcel. Date: Attendees: Phone Conversation May 25, 2010 Linda Lashley Trisch, adjacent property owner (830) 997-2590 Molly Orkild-Larson; Senior Planner RE: Orr -Smith Major (4 lot) Exemption EXHIBIT Topics of Discussion: Mrs. Linda Lashley Trisch called on behalf of herself and her husband to say they thought the subdivision was a positive proposal in that it would allow other families to experience a country life style. She also mentioned that development of the land should be done in a way that is more environmentally sensitive.